1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to swimming devices and more particularly to a swimming device that allows the swimmer to swim in the water while preventing the swimmer from traveling through the water.
2. Description of the Related Art
Numerous devices have been invented and produced for swimming and related recreational water activities. Rafts, swim masks, and various other toys are all known in the art.
Swimming is considered to be one of the best exercises available, better even than that of running or jogging, as swimming is a low impact sport. Swimming exercises both sets of the swimmer's extremities and provides the highly aerobic activity that running does without the destructive impacts that are continually placed upon the joints of a runner.
Recently, and with the increased interest in better health through physical fitness, devices have appeared on the market that allow a person to exercise in the water to take advantage of the drag inherently present with any motion through the water. One such device is a set of water dumbbells that substitutes the drag of the water for the force previously provided by weights. A second device is a flotation device that wraps around a person's midsection to allow the person to float safely upright in the water while engaging in the same physical motion runners or joggers perform while running or jogging. For both devices, the drag of the water provides a resistive force that not shock or jar the person's body. Further, the drag of the water is continuous and so exercises any muscle or muscle group continually throughout the entire articulation of that muscle or muscle group.
Both of these devices provide exercise and develop the muscles of their users, but they do not provide the same rigorous exercise as does swimming. Consequently, while these devices have their place, they do not replace swimming as one of the most, if not the most, desirable exercises for improving health through physical activity.
While swimming is good exercise, not all people are able to engage in swimming activity. There are several possible reasons. A swimming pool or facility may not be available. A pool or facility may be available, but it may be too small for a swimmer to engage in the continuously repetitive swimming strokes that require a pool of some size. With a small pool, a swimmer may be able to cover the longest length of the pool in only a few strokes, forcing the swimmer to reverse direction several times a minute. Swimming under such circumstances in a small pool forces the swimmer to concentrate on his or her position in the pool rather than on the swimming strokes. Further, the enjoyable aspects of swimming derived from the ongoing rhythmic activity are completely disrupted by having to stop and turn every ten or twelve strokes. While a small pool is not preferable when swimming for exercise, such a pool might be readily available, especially to the many people living in apartment complexes that have a small pool available for the tenants. For some areas, above-ground pools are common and may be readily available.
Large swimming pools or facilities are expensive and are only infrequently constructed for private use, even by wealthy individuals. Such larger facilities also require major upkeep with its accompanying inconveniences. While a large swimming pool is probably the best place to engage in swimming, such facilities are not privately available to most people.
However, public swimming facilities on a large scale may be available to the public in general. In most metropolitan areas, public swimming facilities are provided that would allow a person to engage in swimming for exercise. While these public facilities do provide a place where people may swim for exercise, such facilities may be crowded. It is difficult to make the long pool-length courses desirable when swimming for exercise when the path is littered by other individuals having fun and otherwise using the public pool as is proper.
Swimming for exercise programs may be available at certain times of the day at certain swimming facilities. Organizations such as the YMCA, YWCA, or other similar organizations may have programs that allow a swimmer to use a pool for exercise swimming. Of course, it then becomes necessary for the swimmer to fit his or her schedule to one that is imposed by the program or organization. If the swimmer's schedule does not mesh with that of the program, it may not be possible for the swimmer to take advantage of the program.
For both the public swimming facility and a swimming facility provided by a non-public organization, some travel may be required of the swimmer in order to use the pool. Such travel can cramp an otherwise busy schedule and can reduce the amount of time available to engage in exercise swimming.
In order to engage in exercise swimming, it would be very helpful to combine the convenience of a small pool with the travel length of a big pool. One solution to this problem is to create a current of flowing water in a small pool that runs counter to the direction of the swimmer's travel. Such pools have been previously advertised in magazines. The installation of such a countercurrent pool, or the modification of an existing pool to perform as a counter-current pool, can only be made at a significant expense and subsequently requires significant upkeep that can be inconvenient.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,948,117 issued to Burke on Aug. 14, 1990 discloses a swim band that allows a swimmer to use almost any swimming pool to engage in continuous exercise swimming. By releasably attaching harnesses to the swimmer's legs and then by attaching the harnesses to the swim band, a swimmer is tethered in place so that he or she can swim without moving relative to the point of attachment. While the Burke device represents some improvement over the prior art, some drawbacks remain that detrimentally affect the use and manufacture of the Burke swim band.
The primary problem with the Burke swim band is the use of harnesses to attach the swim band to the swimmer's lower extremities. While providing an effective means of attachment to the swimmer, Burke's harnesses are not as effective as other configurations might be and hinder the swimmer's physical activity in the water.
As can be seen from the drawings in the Burke patent, the harness requires two points of attachment to the belt that wraps around the swimmer's lower extremity. Having two points of attachment at least doubles the potential interference the harness will have with the swimmer's foot. It is much more advantageous to have but a single point of attachment between the swimmer's foot and a device holding the swimmer stationary in the water. With but a single point of attachment, the cord holding the swimmer in place is more easily avoided and less effort must be made by the swimmer to avoid the attachment and the cord. Even greater advantages would be presented to the swimmer if the single point of attachment were adjustable so that for whatever stroke the swimmer engages in, the best and least entangling position is attained for the point of attachment.
In attaching the belts to the swimmer's lower extremities, Burke does not provide easy means by which the swimmer may disengage from the swim band. It may become necessary, especially in the case of an emergency, for the swimmer to disengage from the Burke swim band. The belts in Burke do not provide easy means for disengagement and those belts may be difficult to pull apart or otherwise uncouple. Further, the harnesses in Burke are not easily disengaged from the swim band as the spring-biased keeper must be found not only for one, but for both harnesses. Under the stress of an urgent situation it may be difficult to disengage the harnesses from the swim band and/or the belts from the swimmer.
The Burke harness also requires directional biasing of the flexible fabric strap (reference number 34). The directional biasing of the flexible fabric strap may work adequately for freestyle or Australian crawl swimming. However, such directional biasing of a loop would not work adequately for other swimming strokes such as the backstroke, the butterfly stroke, or the breast stroke. These swimming strokes call for different motions of the swimmer's feet than is performed for the Australian crawl. For these other swimming strokes with their different foot motions, the directionally biased loop provides many more opportunities for the swimmer's foot to become entangled with the harness. Further, the directionally biased loop can only be attached to the foot in one of two ways in order for the swimmer's foot to fit within the loop. This lack of adjustability of Burke's harness makes entanglement of the swimmer's foot by the harness more probable.
Burke's detachable harnesses may also encumber the swimmer's feet at the point the swim band attaches to the harness. Additional and potentially encumbering structures are present in the Burke swim band in order to allow the harnesses to detach from the swim band. Whatever form taken by these means of detachment, they can only detract from the integrity and effective use of the swim band. Further, allowing the harnesses to detach from the swim band requires greater effort and expense in order to make and manufacture a Burke swim band. Also, if one of the detachable harnesses were to be misplaced, the Burke swim band would be rendered useless as the swimmer would not be able to enjoy a balance of forces used to restrain the swimmer and maintain him or her in place. If only one harness attached one leg of the swimmer to the swim band, the swimmer would be restrained in an unbalanced way that would greatly detract from the effective use and enjoyment of Burke's swim band.
Further manufacturing difficulty and expense is required by a Burke swim band at the buckle and the anchor strap due to the variety of materials demanded by the Burke design.
It can readily be seen that there is a need for a stationary swimming device that potentially entangles the swimmer to the least possible extent, that allows the engagement by the swimmer in the greatest number of swimming strokes, that allows the point of attachment to the swimmer to be adjusted to the greatest possible extent, that minimizes the risk imposed by misplaced parts, and that can be manufactured in an inexpensive way that requires a minimum of different materials.